DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.362 of 2019
Date of institution: 14.03.2019 Date of decision : 06.08.2019
Daljeet Singh son of Shri Baldev Singh, resident of House No.1635, Sector 51, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., The North Country Mall, NH-21, Mohali, Punjab.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Jasjit Singh Saini, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Saurabh Gulia, counsel for the OP.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased article on 30.06.2017 after paying Rs.132/-. That product was having MRP of Rs.250/- inclusive of all taxes. After discount of 50%, price of the product came to Rs.125/- inclusive of all taxes, but VAT amount of Rs.6/- @ 6.05% charged on the discounted price, which is alleged to be unfair trade practice resulting in mental and physical harassment of complainant. So complaint filed for direction to OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.6/- with interest. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply filed by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious due to which same is not maintainable. Besides it is claimed that no cause of action has accrued to complainant for filing this complaint. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the issue pertaining to taxes. OP clearly mentioned words “Taxes/VAT Extra”, in all of its advertisements and marketing material. Copies of in-store displays and advertisements on the discount offer were displayed at various places inside the Lifestyle Store. Even complainant was informed about the discount offer. OP as per standard policy has displayed declaration for charging VAT/Taxes on the selling price. VAT is a statutory liability on OP. Charged VAT amount has to be mandatorily deposited with the Govt. exchequer. Total cash collected from complainant is less than MRP value mentioned on the price tag and as such OP has not charged any amount in excess of MRP. VAT to be charged by seller from buyer and thereafter the same has to be deposited in the concerned Govt. department. It is also admitted that discount was offered on the purchased product. Complainant was explained about the scheme and he purchased the product without raising any protest. Other averments of the complaint denied. It is claimed that sale price is defined in the Sales Tax Act and Punjab VAT Act, 2005 as the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade. Sales price enters into computation of assessee’s turnover for the purpose of assessment under Sales Tax Act. Other averments of the complaint denied.
3. As per latest instructions received from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab there is no need to record evidence of the parties and as such after hearing arguments of counsel for parties and going through produced record, this complaint is decided
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. It is not denied by OP in its written reply or in the affidavit of its authorised representative that MRP was inclusive of all taxes. Discount was offered on MRP of Rs.125/- is a fact admitted by OP in written reply as well as through affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of its representative. Further in invoice Ex.C-1 it is mentioned that collected VAT on the discounted price is Rs.6.25 N.P. and as such present is a case in which excess paid amount on the discounted price is Rs.6.25 N.P. and not Rs.6/- as demanded by complainant. Even on calculation made, it is made out as if VAT of Rs.6.25 N.P. is collected on the discounted price and not the figure mentioned in the complaint. So entitlement of complainant for refund will be of Rs.6.25 N.P. only. Tag of the purchased product also shows that MRP of the purchased product is inclusive of all taxes. Practice of charging VAT on the discounted price having MRP inclusive of all taxes has been deprecated by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Aero Club (Wood Land) through its Manager Vs. Rakesh Sharma bearing Revision Petition No.3477 of 2016 decided on 04.01.2017 as well as in case bearing First Appeal No.136 of 2017 titled as M/s Aero Club Vs. Ravinder Singh Dhanju decided on 23.05.2017 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh. Ratio of both these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. So practice of charging VAT on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes in this case certainly is unfair trade practice.
6. Even if VAT to be charged from the buyer, despite that the terms of such practice can be changed by mutually arrived at contract through which the buyer may undertake liability to pay VAT on the discounted price of a product having MRP inclusive of all taxes. It was OP itself who professed through tag that MRP will be inclusive of all taxes and as such on the discounted price, OP by such undertaking bound to pay VAT or other taxes. Complainant on representation of OP of discount offer on product having MRP inclusive of all taxes, purchased the product in question from OP and as such now OP estopped by its act and conduct from claiming that VAT to be charged extra on the discounted price, especially when law on the subject referred above is to the contrary.
7. Provisions of Sales Tax Act or VAT Act 2005 stands on different footing than that of beneficial provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Assessment of turnover of a trader for purpose of sales tax to be done under the provisions of taxation provisions for collecting revenue for the State, but under the garb thereof benefit of beneficial provisions of Consumer Protection Act cannot be denied to the consumers. So even if there may be responsibility of OP to collect VAT on the sold products, but despite that it is bound by its open offer of not charging VAT extra on the products having MRP inclusive of all taxes.
8. Though it is contended that advertisements displayed for notice of consumers that VAT to be charged extra on the discounted price, but there is nothing on the record to suggest as to at which conspicuous place of OP’s show room, such advertisement was put and as such virtually due notice of the scheme of charging extra VAT on discounted price is not given to complainant. It is the claim of complainant put forth in the complaint as well as in the submitted affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 that he raised protest regarding charging of extra VAT on the discounted price of the product having MRP inclusive of all taxes and as such it is not a case in which complainant paid the VAT on the discounted price without protest.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to refund excess charged amount of Rs.6.25 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 30.06.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
August 06, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
